HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 07 February 2018
Subject: Reconsideration of
Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation
Matters
Reason for Report
1. This
report re-presents the “Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki
(Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters for the Committee’s
reconsideration as resolved by Council on 29 November 2017; being that Council:
1.1. Requests that
the Regional Planning Committee reconsider the “Policy Options for
Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters” staff
report presented to the 1 November 2017 meeting.
2. Before
Christmas, Councillors had asked staff to re-present this report to the
Committee meeting scheduled for 6 December 2017. At that time, the
report’s content was virtually a replica of that which was considered by
the Committee at its meeting on 1 November 2017.
3. For
reasons that will be outlined shortly, this paper now includes a discussion of
a number of factors Committee members may wish to take into account when
considering the wording the recommendations crafted on 1 November 2017.
Updates since
paper was first tabled on 1 November 2017
4. Staff
recommend that committee members take the following matters into account as a
part of their deliberations on the re-submission of the original paper:
Time:
4.1. The original
paper highlighted the inherent risks associated in using a plan change as the
vehicle to achieve a deferral of the minimum flow regime in plan change 6. It
was noted that timeframes for achieving a plan change were tight, even
utilising the untested streamlined planning pathway (SPP).
4.2. With three
further months having passed since the paper was first presented, staff have
strong reservations that the plan change option remains a realistic method of
achieving the outcomes originally sought in time for the 2018/19 summer. This
is due to a number of factors including availability of staff resources as well
as the material uncertainty of whether the Minister for the Environment will
allow the SPP to be used in this instance.
Community Engagement:
4.3. Early in the
New Year staff, met with a representative of the Central Hawke’s Bay
Surface Water Group – a committee representing consent holders for surface
water takes in the Tukituki catchment. Consistent with previous
representations to the committee by CHB community groups, this group is
resolved to find the necessary solutions to what it sees as being the
precarious issues its members face. In doing so the group firmly believe that
the best and most enduring solutions will be those that solve for the
collective and not for the individual.
4.4. As it stands,
PC6 contains a number of mechanisms that were intended to mitigate the impacts
of the higher minimum flow regime on water users. These include the provisions
for community irrigation schemes, Tranche 2 water, the high-flow allocation
regime for on-farm storage, graduated ban impacts depending of a water
user’s degree of connection to the waterbody, emergency ‘crop
survival’ provisions, and policy that allows for the collective and
co-ordinated management of existing water allocations (similar to the Twyford
Global consents scheme). The group believes that with sufficient time and
resources they will be able to generate a consent holder advisory plan that
identifies the preferred pathway for managing water allocation across surface
water users within the PC6 framework. It is likely that this approach
will identify a matrix of short, medium and long term solutions that requires
the co-operation of water users that are unaffected by the minimum flow regime,
or who have already secured provisional rights to (but not yet taken)
previously unallocated water such as Tranche 2 and high-flow water.
4.5. Staff are
considering a request from the group to support an urgent assessment and
analysis of solutions by an independent expert consultant which has been
shortlisted by the group’s representative committee. It is likely that
staff will recommend to the Chief Executive that this request be supported
subject to certain conditions (including non-negotiable commitments for
affected water users having farm plans in place in May 2018)
4.6. If the
analysis is completed within projected timeframes and viable solutions can be
both identified and successfully negotiated and resolved as between the holders
of various water right allocations, HBRC consents and compliance staff, and
other stakeholders as required, then it is possible that interim measures can
be effected in time to offset the impacts of the minimum flows. However,
it would be misleading to suggest that this approach will definitely resolve
the issues for the groups members. It may be that viable solutions are either
not identified for all or a sub-set of the affected water users.
Stakeholder Discussions
4.7. It was noted
in the earlier paper that HBRC is committed to facilitating stakeholder
discussions between water users, community groups, Tangata Whenua, NGO’s,
DoC and other relevant submitters to either the PC6 or surface take consent
renewal process. While it has not been possible to commence these discussions
over the Christmas period they are scheduled to commence in late February or
early March. It is hoped that these community discussions will play a role
in informing council’s approach to the enforcement of consent conditions
during potential ban periods in the 2018/19 summer.
5. That concludes
the staff update section of this report – what follows is the original
paper as prepared at the request of Councillors.
Process for Reconsideration
6. Following
is the content copied directly from the 1 November 2017 item for the Committee
to re-consider.
7. The
“Recommendations” included are those moved and seconded at the 1
November 2017 meeting.
Reason for Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki
(Plan Change 6) Implementation Matters Report
8. This
report is prepared in response to a request from the Committee arising from its
meeting on 2 August 2017:
“Requests that staff take
feedback from the meeting in order to report back to the Regional Planning
Committee as soon as practicable on options (including scope, timing and
resources) for progressing a narrow plan change to address urgent
implementation matters in Tukituki Plan Change 6.” [emphasis added]
9. Committee
members will recall (or at least can refer back to) the staff report presented
to the 2 August meeting, so that is not repeated here. At the
Committee’s meeting on 4 October, a delegation from the Central
Hawke's Bay community presented a case for deferral of new increased minimum
flows coming into effect from June 2018. Consequently, this report focusses on:
9.1. Part 1
– deferral of new minimum flows
9.2. Part 2
– potentially urgent implementation challenges and plan change options.
PART 1: deferral of new minimum flows
10. The
community delegates that presented to the Committee on 4 October
made their case for deferral of new minimum flows based on a wide range of
considerations. Those considerations included economic impact on farm businesses
and the broader community impact beyond just the water users themselves.
Factors for consideration also included:
10.1. the reliance many water
users had placed on the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme to mitigate the impact
of the new flows rules
10.2. the short period of
adjustment available following the Supreme Court’s RWSS land swap
decision in July 2017, and
10.3. the need for a period of
time (notionally 5 years) to identify and execute long-term solutions
(including land use change) to the challenges brought about by PC6.
11. PC6’s
policies, amongst many things, set new minimum flow regime and allocation
limits (Policies TT7 & TT8). Under the policy, minimum flows increase while
groundwater and surface water allocation limits are set based on the existing
volume of consented allocation. Transition periods are also specified to
implement the increased minimum flows. As identified, PC6 introduced new
minimum flow conditions at a number of locations in the catchment:
11.1. For the tributaries
these take effect in 2018.
11.2. For the Tukituki
mainstem at the Red Bridge monitoring site the minimum flows are to be raised
in two stages. They increase from the current 3,500 L/s to 4,300 L/s in
2018 and to 5,200 L/s in 2023.
11.3. The stage one increase
at the Red Bridge site affects all takes that are subject to minimum flow
conditions. (There can be more than one minimum flow gauging point applying to
a take in which case the consent holder must stop taking water when the first
minimum flow point is reached).
11.4. The stage two increase
affects all takes upstream of Red Bridge including the tributaries. Takes
downstream of the Red Bridge minimum flow site are only required to step up
once, to the 4,300 L/s minimum flow.
12. Table 1
compares the predicted frequency of a year with a period of 10 or more
consecutive days of restriction during January and February before and after
new minimum flow regime comes into effect in July 2018. The greatest impact is
predicted at the Tukituki River at Red Bridge site, with the 4300 l/s
representing the 2018 minimum flow and the 5200 l/s to apply in 2023.
Table 1
13. When
resource consents[1]
were replaced in 2013 the new minimum flow conditions were included to phase in
as per the [then] proposed plan. As it stands those consent conditions will
come into force and be subject to compliance from 1 July 2018.
The consents were granted for seven years and are set to expire in 2020.
14. Bluntly,
what this means is that even if PC6’s new minimum flows were amended and
deferred for some period of time, consents with the same minimum flow
conditions would also need altering. Amending the RRMP’s new minimum flow
limits by a plan change would not automatically remove the need for consent
holders to comply with consent conditions. A separate process is required for
altering those consent conditions.
15. It is
plausible for a plan change to be drafted that would alter one or more of the
date(s) from which PC6’s new minimum flows apply. Another plausible
scenario is a plan change proposing cancellation (i.e. deletion) of the stage 1
increase at the Red Bridge site at 1 July 2018 but retain the stage 2 increase
on 1 July 2023. In the event that the Committee were to agree to proceed with
further work on this type of plan change proposal, then a fuller examination of
wording options and respective benefits and costs would be necessary prior to
public notification of the proposed plan change.
16. Based on
a very focussed scope of a possible plan change as outlined above, timing
resourcing implications have been broadly estimated. In making those
estimations, senior planning staff considered two plan change pathways:
16.1. the standard
council-initiated plan change (CPC) and
16.2. the newly introduced
streamlined planning pathway (SPP).
17. Estimates
of staff time and external expenditure resourcing needs for a standard CPC
pathway are at least $120,000 - $200,000 (not including any Environment
Court-related appeal costs).[2]
In terms of timing, public notification could occur as early as March 2018, and
if appropriately resourced, a hearing could be held by December 2018. Decisions
and any appeals would run into 2019 and beyond. This is all subject to the
necessary resourcing being in place.
18. In terms
of the SPP, the author of this report has had preliminary discussions with MfE
officials regarding logistics and realities of the SPP in this situation. Key
points to note are:
18.1. the SPP would be an
appropriate vehicle for this type of plan change
18.2. the ‘entry
criteria’ for a SPP application to the Minister would be readily
satisfied
18.3. pre-application liaison
with MfE officials and the Minister’s office is crucial to testing and
designing a streamlined plan change process that meets the Minister’s
approval
18.4. the pre-application
liaison phase could alone span 3-5 months given current and ongoing uncertainty
for Ministry officials and the incoming Government’s appetite for SPP
until fuller briefings of the yet-to-be-named new Minister for the Environment
18.5. the SPP does not involve
an opportunity for submitters to appeal the outcome of the plan change to the
Environment Court, and so ‘saves’ a potentially lengthy
‘tail-end’ to a proposed plan change process.
19. Accordingly,
staff would recommend utilising the SPP approach for this plan change only on
matters that staff can secure in-principle support from those PC6/ consent
submitters referred to above. If support is not apparent, then the standard CPC
process could still be pursued if that is the Committee’s preference.
20. Assuming
a relatively uncontested process, resourcing and timing for a SPP to defer
timing of PC6’s new minimum flows have been roughly estimated[3] to be around
$100,000 to $150,000. There are no Environment Court appeal-related costs with
a SPP process. In terms of timing, a formal application to the Minister could
be made in early 2018, with the remainder of the SPP phases (consultation with
specified parties, submissions, decision on submissions and Ministerial
approval) likely to extend through the remainder of 2018.
21. Remember,
notwithstanding any plan change that the Committee may agree to prepare and
notify to alter timing of new minimum flows:
21.1. the timing and actual
outcome of a plan change cannot be guaranteed because it is subject to a
quasi-judicial process of evidence-based decision-making, and
21.2. existing consent
conditions would also need to be modified.
PART 2: PC6 Implementation Challenges and Policy Options
22. Following
the Committee’s request in August for staff to provide further advice on
a “narrow” plan change for “urgent” implementation
matters, key staff involved in implementing PC6 have focussed on matters
relating to:
22.1. Urgent process alignment
22.2. Urgent process
improvement
22.3. Urgent minor/technical
fixes.
23. This
focus was framed by a number of key questions, including:
23.1. Is the amendment a
‘must have’ or a ‘nice-to-have’ for implementation
success?
23.2. Is the amendment
required to be in place in the next 1-2 years or something else?
23.3. Is the amendment a
substantive alteration in PC6 policy approach, or is it more akin to a
fix/tidy-up/process alignment or similar?
24. The
staff assessment also considered what degree of community interest (i.e.
support or opposition) might exist for the amendment and how that might
influence swift passage through a plan change process. The assessment revealed
one stand-out candidate for a remedial plan change. That was in relation to how
practical implementation of PC6 needs to accommodate version updates to a
third-party provider modelling tool called OVERSEER. However, this challenge is
not unique to PC6. It is faced in other regions, and it is virtually inevitable
that the challenge will also need to be addressed for managing land and water
within limits in the region’s other catchments.
25. Taking
any of the candidates for technical and process amendments in isolation, costs
of a plan change to remedy obsolete dates or improve processes would far
outweigh any meaningful benefits for practical implementation. However,
planning staff consider that if several process improvements, process
alignments and technical fixes were bundled into an ‘omnibus’ plan
change, or several discrete plan changes in parallel, then the collective
benefits would more likely outweigh the Council’s costs of preparing and
notifying any proposed amendments. For example, if a fix dealing with OVERSEER
versions was supported, then a few other technical fixes and improvements could
also be bundled with the OVERSEER amendment. The assessment rated the following
as the top two ‘add-on’ amendments in the event of an
‘omnibus type plan change being proposed:
25.1. Adding a requirement
that when requested by HBRC, a landholder must provide the council with a copy
of the landholder’s farm environmental management plan (FEMP)
25.2. Amendment to fill a gap
in the stream depletion management regime set in Policy TT1 and Table 5.9.7.
26. Importantly
however, as noted in the ‘Financial and Resourcing Implications’
section below, there is no financial budget or staff time allocation in
place for any type of PC6 ‘fix’ plan change – no matter how
big, small, urgent or otherwise.
27. The
prudent course of action would be to first establish the relative priority of
an omnibus-type plan change to address relevant PC6 implementation issues[4], then Council decide
upon the appropriate resourcing if a plan change was indeed a priority in the
Council’s overall resource management plan programme. Another option is
to ‘park’ potential PC6 fixes and tidy-ups and incorporate into the
upcoming wider review of the RRMP (which, in the current 2015-25 LTP is
scheduled to commence in the 2020-21 period). A number of other potential RRMP
‘fixes’ have been parked already in anticipation of that upcoming
review.[5]
28. In the
event that the Committee were supportive of further work being done on a plan
change deferring dates for PC6’s new minimum flows, then our
recommendation is that that proposition remains the plan change’s sole
focus. That would mean avoiding (as tempting as it might be to some)
‘hitching’ additional fixes and tidy-ups onto the same plan change.
We consider doing so would pose large risks to the timely conclusion of
amending minimum flow dates because:
28.1. Pre-notification
scoping, drafting, s32 evaluation and mandatory consultation requirements lead
to delayed notification of a proposed plan change, and
28.2. the quantity and
complexity of submissions lodged would stretch the phase between notification
and council issuing decisions on those submissions (i.e. the steps of
summarising submissions and inviting further submissions, staff evaluating
submissions and reporting their recommendations to a hearings panel, a panel
hearing submissions and forming recommendations etc), and
28.3. the greater probability
of some or all of the plan change being subject to one or more appeals to the
Environment Court.
What would be the effect of any proposed Plan Change?
29. A plan
change is an inherently lengthy process, but timeframes can be condensed by
careful management of scope, design and drafting to fashion minimal opposition
to the proposal. More recently, there is now the potential to apply for
Ministerial permission to follow the RMA’s new ‘streamlined’
planning pathway for plan changes. However, a great deal of uncertainty exists
regarding a cost-effective ability to conclude any of the potential plan
changes discussed in this report within a timeframe that provides practical
solutions or relief to affected parties. Consultation with, and support of, key
submitters on PC6 and the parties that submitted on the latest consent reviews
for Tukituki surface water/depleting groundwater takes will be decisive. These
and other external factors present uncertainty and risk of the process and
final outcome. Accordingly, should the Committee recommend that Council
prepares such a plan change it should be careful to remind stakeholders that
both the scope and timing of the outcome cannot be guaranteed.
30. Upon
public notification of a plan change, the proposal is something that the
consent authority (i.e. HBRC) can consider in its decisions. However, the
context of those decisions can have their own additional limitations to this
rule of thumb.
31. It is
important to note that until such time as the proposed plan change becomes
operative there is little scope for Council to ignore, suspend or otherwise act
contrary to the scope and timing of the low-flow regime introduced by PC6.
While in reality these do not ‘bite’ until the 2018/19 irrigation
season, this timeframe still represents a challenge for even the streamlined
planning process. Should Committee members agree to proceed with a plan change
deferring dates of the new minimum flows, they should also be aware that:
31.1. Under s128 of the RMA,
HBRC can only initiate a review of consent conditions (which in this case would
be the fact that the new flow regime sits both as a rule under PC6 and also as
a condition of most surface and connected groundwater takes) when a plan
becomes operative. Notification of a proposed plan change is an
insufficient milestone for s128 reviews.
31.2. Consent holders can
under s127 of the RMA apply for a review of consent conditions, but it is not
certain that the if the notification of a new policy direction via a plan
change would be enough of a counterbalance to justify a change to consent
conditions until and unless the plan change was all but operative. This would
be have to be managed on a case by case basis at the time.
31.3. Council’s approach
to the enforcement of irrigation bans that result from the new flow regime remain
subject to a matrix of considerations including the legislation, MfE
guidelines, Regional Council best practice and HBRC’s enforcement
policy. Accordingly, while there is always a common-sense approach to
enforcement of consent conditions it is impossible at this juncture to provide
any sense of certainty or comfort to affected parties (ahead of a plan change
becoming operative) without knowing the timing and circumstances any alleged
breach. For example, if the plan change was well advanced by the summer of
2018/19, Council could well exercise a discretion not to enforce irrigations
bans in anticipation of the proposed changes becoming operative.
Considerations for Tangata Whenua
32. PC6 and
the proposed RWSS has effects on Tangata Whenua values and interests that were
addressed during the Board of Inquiry hearing and decision-making process (i.e.
2014-2015). Social and economic benefits were expected from involvement in
construction of the scheme and possible equity investment. If a plan change was
to be prepared, then tāngata whenua interests would need to be considered
further, as well as consultation with tāngata whenua through the relevant
iwi authorities.
Financial and Resource Implications
33. Financial
and resource implications of proceeding with a plan change are not
insignificant.
34. In the
current 2017/18 Annual Plan and 2015-25 Long Term Plan, there are no budgets in
place for staff time allocations nor external expenditure to provide resource
to a plan change of any kind to address PC6 implementation challenges –
urgent or otherwise. This could potentially be resolved through decisions and
choices to be made during the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process currently under
way.
35. The
significance of the decision will ultimately be influenced by what the decision
actually is. Because the staff’s recommendation is for the Committee to
consider matters raised in this report, then provide direction to staff
according to the Committee’s preference, the precise form and character
of the decision cannot be assessed at the time of writing this report.
36. During
its discussion and deliberations on matters presented in this report, the
Committee should carefully consider whether or not any of its potential
decision(s) are indeed verging on significant. If a decision were to be
significant, then there are additional procedural requirements regarding
decision-making under the Local Government Act, notwithstanding that a plan
change is also bound to follow legislative requirements by the RMA.
Decision Making Process
37. Council
is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the
Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). As noted in paragraphs 33-36 of this
report, staff have not fully assessed the requirements in relation to this
item. The Committee itself needs to carefully consider LGA’s
decision-making requirements.
|
Recommendations
1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the
“Policy Options for Addressing Urgent Tukituki (Plan Change 6)
Implementation Matters” staff report.
2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:
2.1. Considers the Local Government Act decision-making requirements in
relation to what approach(es) may be preferred.
2.2. Directs staff to undertake further discussions with Ministry for the
Environment officials, relevant iwi authorities and key stakeholders (namely
HB Fish and Game Council, NZ Royal Forest and Bird Society and the Department
of Conservation) regarding:
2.2.1. The
potential of an application from the Council to use a streamlined plan change
pathway for a plan change proposing to defer dates from which Tukituki Plan
Change 6 increased minimum flows take effect; and
2.2.2. The
potential of a standard council-initiated plan change in relation to a short
list of other potential amendments to ease challenges with implementing
elements of Tukituki Plan Change 6 subject to relevant resourcing being
provided through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.
2.3. In relation to 2.2.1 above, requests staff report back to the
Regional Planning Committee meeting on 7 February 2018 outlining preliminary
responses from the parties.
2.4 Directs staff to report back to the Regional Planning Committee on
the range of options currently available to consent holders under the
provisions of Tukituki Plan Change 6.
2.5 The irrigators affected be invited to submit to Council, either
individually or collectively, what plans they have for the use of the time
afforded by the extension and what achievements they
would expect to achieve by such a delay as requested.
|
Authored by:
|
Gavin Ide
Manager, Strategy and Policy
|
|
Approved by:
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager
Strategic Development
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Regional
Planning Committee
Wednesday 07 February 2018
Subject: Update - Outstanding
Water Bodies Plan Change
Reason for Report
1. To provide an
update on the progress of the outstanding waterbody plan change workstream
which the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) previously agreed to progress in
June 2017.
Background
2. Since June,
planning staff have been focussing on Parts 1 and 2 of the agreed project
approach (see paragraph 7 below). In particular, the focus has been on those
publications which discuss the cultural and spiritual values associated with
various waterbodies across the region and ensuring they are accurately recorded.
3. The first part
of this work is now complete, and the findings have been provided to each of
the Treaty settlement entities in Hawke’s Bay inviting their feedback.
This includes those entities represented on the RPC, plus Ngāi Tūhoe,
Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāi
Tāmanuhiri, Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rongowhakaata.
4. That
information has been deliberately left in draft form so any comments and
amendments from the Treaty settlement entities can be incorporated before the
cultural values literature review is finalised.
Key dates
5. The following
key dates apply in the short to medium term.
5.1. Dec
2017/Jan 2018: complete high level review of region’s waterbodies for
ecological, recreational and landscape values.
5.2. mid Feb
2018: all comments and amendments to draft cultural values literature
review must be received from Treaty settlement entities.
5.3. March
2018: report findings of high level review back to RPC members and consider
short list of ‘candidate outstanding waterbodies.’
5.4. April 2018:
Commence secondary analysis on ‘candidate outstanding waterbodies’.
Recap
6. In June 2017,
the Regional Planning Committee endorsed an approach co-designed with the RPC
tangata whenua representatives, to identify outstanding waterbodies (OWB)
across the region, considering all values at the same time.
7. The project
approach can be broadly split up into the following 5 parts.
|
Part 1:
|
Comprise an initial list of named waterbodies from
Draft Change 5 and those waterbodies of significance to Tāngata whenua
as listed in deeds of settlement, statutory acknowledgements, treaty
settlements, customary usage reports, Waitangi tribunal reports, supplied
affidavits and several court cases.
|
|
Part 2:
|
Carry out a high level review of all waterbodies on
the ‘initial list’, presenting the findings in a table format
featuring the following value headings for each waterbody: importance to
Tāngata whenua, water quality, recreation, ecology, natural features,
landscape and scientific.
|
|
Part 3:
|
Report findings of high level review back to RPC.
Confirm short list of ‘candidate outstanding waterbodies’
followed by a secondary analysis and consultation with iwi authorities and
district councils.
|
|
Part 4:
|
Report findings back to RPC of the secondary
analysis on short listed waterbodies, plus comments from consultation. RPC to
confirm waterbodies which are outstanding in Hawke’s Bay for the
purposes of the NPSFM.
|
|
Part 5:
|
Draft a plan change accordingly, carry out
consultation, and present a draft outstanding waterbody plan change to RPC
for adoption and notification.
|
Implications of this
update report for Tāngata whenua
8. Tāngata whenua have a special cultural, spiritual,
historical and traditional associations with freshwater. The
relationship between Tāngata whenua and freshwater is founded in
whakapapa, which is the foundation for an inalienable relationship between
Māori and freshwater that is recorded, celebrated and perpetuated across
generations. Freshwater is recognised by Māori as a taonga of paramount
importance.
9. All waterbodies
are important for spiritual, physical and customary reasons, and the
RPC’s agreed project approach is intended to ensure tāngata
whenua values are addressed as part of a robust process to identify OWB in
Hawke’s Bay.
10. It is important to note
that the OWB plan change does not act to lessen the importance of waterbodies
that are not labelled ‘outstanding’ or ‘significant’ or
change the way in which these waterbodies are managed. The NPSFM and
council’s overall work programme will continue to recognise that water is a taonga of paramount importance to Maori, and tāngata
whenua’s special cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional
associations with all waterbodies.
Decision Making Process
11. Staff have assessed the
requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have
concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making
provisions do not apply.
|
Recommendation
That the Regional Planning Committee
receives and notes the “Update on
Identification of Outstanding Freshwater Bodies Work Programme” staff report.
|
Authored by:
|
Belinda
Harper
Senior Planner
|
Gavin Ide
Manager, Strategy and Policy
|
Approved by:
|
Tom Skerman
Group Manager
Strategic Development
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
